Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 24STCV09755, Date: 2024-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV09755    Hearing Date: June 11, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On April 18, 2024, Plaintiff Christopher Wade (in pro per) filed this action against Defendant Prime/Park La Brea Titleholder.  The Complaint alleges malicious prosecution, fraud, and civil rights violations arising from a prior unlawful detainer action and a workplace violence restraining order.

On May 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Malicious Prosecution.

Plaintiff cites Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 as the basis for his Petition.  (Petition at p. 4.)  Plaintiff contends that his “initial burden is to show that the two causes of action in PLB’s actions against Wade arise from protected activities.”  He then argues that he will prevail on his malicious prosecution claim.

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 governs anti-SLAPP motions.  “The anti-SLAPP procedures are designed to shield a defendant’s constitutionally protected conduct from the undue burden of frivolous litigation.”  (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 393.)  In an anti-SLAPP motion, it is the moving defendant’s burden to show that his own conduct was in furtherance of his free speech.  Then the plaintiff must demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the claim, supported by sufficient evidence to make out a viable prima facie case.  (E.g., O&C Creditors Group, LLC v. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 546, 565-566.)  Section 425.16 provides no authority for a plaintiff obtaining a premature judgment on the merits of the Complaint.

Additionally, Defendant has not yet been served with the summons and complaint.  The summons issued on May 13, 2024—two weeks after Plaintiff filed this Petition.  No proof of service has been filed.  The Court will not grant Plaintiff any relief (in this Petition or in future motions) unless and until the opposing party has been served and has notice of the requested relief.  Plaintiff should serve Defendant by June 17, 2024.  (See California Rules of Court, rule 3.110(b) [“The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.”].)

The Petition for Malicious Prosecution is DENIED.

A Case Management Conference is scheduled for ____________.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 11th day of June 2024